Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Mar 4, 2010 7:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

I'm not sure I'm buying what you're selling today Tell (Jots would call bullshit on you here). So if I think 1981 is the best year am I objective since I started seeing shows in 1987? Is it fair to compare 1973 with 1995 when 99% of heads would pick one over the other? I think Genny makes a good point that you have boxed yourself in such a narrow range that how can that not lead to boredom? Well, to each his own I guess.

By the way, I'm probably one of the few that partially agree with you. While I think 1973 is a very well played year, I see your point that it lacks energy, and perhaps it's how we define energy. Jerry's guitar tone is clean, the jams are more jazzy (and spacey) vs the hard driving shows from 68-71. 1976 is another year that seems slows to me, and perhaps its more tempo related as opposed to quality playing. As you know, I really enjoy the hard charging coke years of the early 80's, which to me have the energy and high quality playing- so I guess I could say I feel sorry for you (and Genny?) as well....but who really cares? Blast away 12-29-68 tonight!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 4, 2010 8:31pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

Hey BD--I've been selling so much tonight, wanted to make sure which load of my BS you were taking issue with (politely of course).

"Jots would call bullshit on you here" Ha! Yes, he probably would--good catch.

"how can that not lead to boredom?" True of course, but I suppose if I have 400 shows (whatever it is), and the "30 yr fan" has 2500, I suppose I am only going to get bored 80% faster, right? Still, I get around that with plenty of other interests, so no real problem there...

"By the way, I'm probably one of the few that partially agree with you." Yes!

But, as to your primary point (this is where I am guessing), did you wonder what I meant by "the objectivity and shows you attended thesis"?

All I am getting at with that biz is that some folks regularly mention that the shows peeps attended get high marks because they were there. IE, these folks admit that bias enters into it. I have no problem with that; it's probably true.

What I am always pointing out is that other folks, or the same folks when they want to make an effort to try to be objective, end up ranking shows they did NOT attend highly too. No big deal there really--not saying it is the "truth" that they have discovered or some such...nor that great shows couldn't have been attended or any such sillyness...and in fact, it might be that someone that went from 72 thru 78 might, like you, end up after listening to everything here, say, "hey, I really think that 82 is the best!". I think that is possible, that's all--they could analyze it "objectively" and come to that conclusion.

Now, I do take pride, and a bit of tongue in cheek satisfaction, in noting that most folks that do what I just described (like me), end up saying, "well, I didn't see them, but now that I have listened to it all, I like 68 over 92 (the only yr I saw them)" or some such.

Does it really mean that 68 is the best? No, as we all know, it is subjective in large measure. But, I do think that you could tick off some (just some) objective criteria and use it as backing for your position (like what I always try to do: say, "better voice for Jerry!" or "great song writing by Hunter!" or "higher energy level for Jerry" and so on and so forth). Of course, you, or whomever, could say "better technical playing by Jerry in 73" or "tighter arrangements for songs" or whatever for some later year, and then as you note, it would come down to what we like...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Mar 4, 2010 9:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: who, me?

It seemed like you were implying that anyone who was not influenced by the shows they attended, would gravitate towards the early years. That was my main point I was trying to make. I also took issue with you throwing out 1995 to Genny comparing that to 1973, which I didnt think was a fair counterpoint.

But I admit that I'm no more objective than the next guy although I rarely listen to any shows from the era that I attended. I, like you, prefer a more up-tempo style of music. I think that's why I took an instant liking to 1971 and I also enjoy 1968 (although the repetitiveness of songs keeps me from listening exclusively to these years). That's probably why we both like Cream better then EC solo. I also grew up in NJ in the 80's where metal was ruling at the time.....so all these influences somehow came together and when I heard shows from 1981 I was instantly sold on the aggressive (faster) style they were playing and of course I love the JGB from 1979-1984, which is in a similar mode.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)